"wall street journal." we appreciate your time on the lobbying efforts. we appreciate your calls. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern "washington journal." we will take you to the floor of the house of representatives live. there will be morning speeches. folks can come up for 5 minutes or less to talk on any topics they would like. they will take a break and come in at noon for legislative business. after another short series of speeches, they will get rolling on the health care debate. this is the repeal of the health care law, up to five hours of debate moving into tomorrow with the final vote on repeal tomorrow. enjoy the rest of your day. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms,

washington, d.c. july 10, 2012, i hereby appoint the honorable stephen m. palazzo to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. like all my colleagues i meant home to my home district as other members go to their districts. i live in eastern north carolina, saw a lot of people. i love my district.

and getting the same message, why are you still in afghanistan? why don't you members of congress vote to bring our troops home? why are you spending the money if we don't have it? and our young men and women are getting killed. again i'm coming to the floor of the house and reporting on a book i'm reading. it's called "funding the enemy," how u.s. taxpayers bankroll the taliban. that's the whole issue. we have defeated bin laden. he's dead. al qaeda has been disbursed all around the world, but we continue to fund a corrupt leader who will not survive in the long term, we all know that, but yet we are playing this little game of spend the american taxpayers' money to keep him in office and let's borrow the money from the chinese that we are spending, because that's the way it's happening, to keep karzai in office. 72% of the american people have

agreed with most of us in the house, not all, it's time to bring our troops home. there's not one thing we are going to accomplish over that. mr. speaker, when i saw that, the national security agreement that the secretary of state and this administration have signed with afghanistan, what we are talking about is after 2014 we will continue to have a military presence of anywhere from 25,000 to 30,000. we are spending approximately $4 billion a month, that's probably a low ball figure, mr. speaker, but $4 billion a month for 10 years. that adds up to about $480 billion in addition to what we have already spent, which is over $1 trillion in afghanistan and iraq, and the poor american people are paying the taxes and getting their programs cut for children, schools, senior citizens, for health programs, and yet we in congress continue to fund the war in afghanistan.

mr. speaker, this book is an eye opener to the fact that the taliban are the biggest recipients of our taxpayers' money. going to pay to kill american kids. a part of this book, i'm going to keep bringing this to the floor until i finish the book, i'm about halfway through, but a summary says this is the first book to detail the toxic embrace of american policymakers and careerists, afghanistan kept and the opportunist taliban. the result u.s. taxpayers have been footing the bill for both sides of a disastrous afghan war. mr. speaker, this past weekend we had eight americans killed. eight americans killed. i have signed over 10,740-some letters to families across this nation because i bought the lie

by the previous administration that said saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which he never did have those weapons. i will continue to come to the floor at least once a month, once a week, several times a month, and talk about the fact that if i could buy this book for every member of congress, it's called "funding the enemy, how u.s. taxpayers bankroll the taliban." and i'll listen to our debates on the floor, sometimes part of it, sometimes not, talking about cutting federal programs for those people who need it the most, but yet we will find $8 billion a month to send to karzai. we'll keep sending our soldiers, marines, sailors, marines, airmen over there so they can be shot and killed, have their feet blown away. it's time for this congress to wake up and we debate the appropriations bill for the department of defense, i hope we will be permitted to bring amendments one after another to the floor asking members of

congress to bring our troops home. mr. speaker, with that i will close my comments by asking god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i will ask god to please in his loving arms hold the children, the families who lost children in afghanistan and iraq, i will ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people today and god's people tomorrow. i will ask god to please bless president obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people today and god's people tomorrow. i will close by asking three times, god please, god please, god please continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. this week the house agriculture committee will consider not just the farm bill but it's also one

of the most important pieces of health legislation, environmental legislation, and vital economic development for rural america. it should be on the radar screen of every member of congress, whether they represent rural or urban districts, our constituency -- all of our constituents benefit from a vibrant agricultural sector. the house is looking at its own legislation, the senate has passed the bill. i must say the senate bill was a start, but there are some provisions in it which i think are worthy of support, but it falls short in overall reform. there is no reason at an era of great concern about reducing federal deficit spending, about improving nutrition and strengthening rural america, that we can't do a better job. currently the majority of farmers and ranchers get no

support from the federal government, and the assistance is concentrated in the hands of a few. the opportunity for us to look carefully at the house draft and hopefully improve upon it. one particular area deals with the cap on commodities and risk management. the senate bill has at least a modest reduction dealing with direct payments. but the house would increase the draft -- the draft would increase those provisions to $125,000, $250,000 per married couples. an incredibly high limitation. sadly the house draft would leave intact current loopholes that allow many wealthy, nonfarm investors, to collect multiples

of the existing payment cap. another area of significant agricultural subsidy that will cries out for reform is the area of crop insurance. this is something that analysts, independent analysts have looked at for years. too much of this is concentrated for a few. it puts too much burden on the individual taxpayer and has too much benefit for those who need it the least. in the house proposal, there is no requirement to link the recipient of crop insurance to the protection of wetlands, thereby compounding future losses, and it does not reduce the subsidy rate for wealthy farmers, investors with high adjusted income.

most concerning is the new provisions that are termed shallow loss revenue, where they are replacing new long-term protections that really come at a potential very high price tag. instead of moving forward for this being an area of subsidy, it has been noted by independent analysts that if commodity prices fall over the course of the next decade significantly, all of the purported savings would disappear under this enhanced shallow loss provision. there are unwise reductions in the conservation and energy titles. in fact, there's no funding whatsoever in the energy title in the house bill. unlike at least the senate bill with $800 million. but it is a significant reduction in the conservation stewardship program.

it would limit the enrollment to nine million acres as opposed to the current 12.8 million acres that are available. now, this is despite the fact that currently with a 30% higher level, 50% of the farmers who want to take advantage of this to protect the land and promote habitat for wildlife and water quality are turned away. another provision that looks like an improvement is actually a problem. it increases the equip program, the environmental quality incentives program, it increases the limitation to $150%, to $450,000. what this does is open the floodgates for very large, confined animal feed lots that

are going to end up swallowing most of this money and not making it available for us, at the same time it reduces the amount available to our farmers. i hope my colleagues will look carefully at this legislation because we need to do better for america's farmers and ranchers, for wildlife and the environment, and for the taxpayer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you. mr. speaker, in the wake of the supreme court decision on the so-called affordable care act, the house will once again take up the imperative of repealing it. but the supreme court decision has much more dire implications for our nation and for its cherished freedoms than merely affirming the government takeover of our health care. in reaching its conclusion, the

court obliterated the fundamental distinction between a penalty and a tax. congress has power to collect taxes and therefore the court reasons it can apply a tax for any reason, even those otherwise outside the confines of the constitution. in this case the court ruled that congress could not impose a law requiring citizens to purchase a government approved health plan under the commerce clause, but it can impose exactly the same requirement as a tax. it can't fine you for disobeying, but it can certainly tax you for disobeying. mr. speaker, if the government fines you $250 for running a red light or taxes you $250 for running a red light, the effect is the same. what's the difference? actually there are two critical differences. first, as a fine as a penalty,

the burden of proof is on the government to prove that you ran that red light. as a tax, the burden of proof is on you to show that you did not run it. anyone who has ever undergone a i.r.s. audit knows exactly what i mean. this decision fundamentally altars the most cherished principal of our justice system, the presumption of innocence. there is a second, even more chilling difference between a penalty and tax. under our constitution, nor penalty can be assessed without due process. you cannot be punished until you have had your day in court. but to challenge a tax, you must first pay that tax before you can seek redress through the courts. you are funnished first and then tried. -- punished first and then tried. this is the madness of louis carroll's red queen brought to life, sentenced first, verdict afterwards. under this decision americans may now be coerced under the threat of the seizure of their

property to take any action the federal government decrees without any constitutional constraint, enforceable in a manner that denies both presumption of innocence and due process of law. by this reasoning it can now attacks speech it fines offensive, tax people who do not go to church or people who do. tax people who own guns or who don't. as long as we call it a tax under this decision, there are no limits to the power of the federal government. . i believe this will go down in history as the most deplorable ever rendered next to dread scott. if the court has failed to defend our constitution, then what appear is left us? there is one. the constitution does not belong to the federal government. its ownership is made crystal clear in its first three words, we the people. as ronald reagan said, the constitution's not the government's document telling us what we can and cannot do.

the constitution is the people's document telling our government those things that we will allow it to do. thus, the supreme court is not the highest court in the land. that position is reserved to the rightful owners of the constitution, the sovereign american people through the votes that they cast every two years. the american people struck down the decision in 1800. the slaves said it was outside the constitution when they struck down the missouri compromise but the american people reversed that in the election of 1860. let us pray before we still can before that is taxed, but this infamous decision will be repudiated who is actually and rightfully the highest court in the land, the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: repeal and replace. if multiple failed attempts constitute delivery on a promise, the republicans have delivered in spades. today, the house of representatives for the 31st time in this session will take up legislation to repeal all or part of the affordable care act, so-called obamacare. 31 attempts tying up the floor of the house. we already did it the first or second day we were here. senate's not going to take it up. but repetition is their mantra here for pretend legislation. now, they could take up real legislation. in fact, they had an

opportunity as part of today's full repeal to take up my legislation which passed the last house of representatives with a massive bipartisan support which would provide lower health care costs and health insurance costs for every american. real legislation. now, why won't we do that? maybe because it will upset the insurance company and they're awfully generous at campaign time on that side of the aisle. i offered to the rules committee an amendment to take away the antitrust immunity of the insurance industry. yes, the insurance industry can and does get together behind closed doors and collude to drive up your rates, to exclude your coverage and coa whole host of other things. now, they've been somewhat constrained by the corregidor in some of their could he louisive practices.

-- collusive practices. the senate, due to -- as i understand it, one democratic senator, ben nelson, failed to include it in their version of the law. we had a separate vote later in the house, over 400 democrats and republicans voted for it. it's common sense. they want to talk about free enterprise. it's not free enterprise when an industry can get together and collude to screw consumers. just not. it's not free enterprise. so my amendment was not allowed. so we are going to have another fake debate about repealing all of obamacare. well, let's think about their vision here because, remember, it was repeal and replace. where's the replace part? not talking about the replaced part. hmm, that's strange. i guess they want to go back to the way they were before. in the 10 years before obamacare, affordable care act, health insurance premiums up 100%, an average of 10% a year. let's go back to those good old

days. uninsured up from 35 million to 44 million during those same 10 years. let's go back to those good old days. recisions. wow, the industry could and did refuse to renew your policy or take it away when you got sick due to technicalities. that was called the rescission. dirty little secret. that was outlawed by the affordable care act. they want to bring that back. give the industry the right. when you get sick with cancer, to take away your policy even though you've been paying your premium for 20 years at these inflated rates. then denial of coverage. of course, we'll bring back denial of coverage. any pre-existing condition. no, we won't sell you a policy. and lifetime limits. they have no replace. they haven't talked about replace. all they're talking about is repeal. let's put just a few statistics on who would not benefit under their proposal. in my district 7,400 young

americans under age 26 are on their parents' policy. nationwide 3.1 million young people have insurance today who won't have it if their repeal bill goes through. seniors, they're getting a 50% discount in the doughnut hole that never should have been created. i voted against their doughnut bill and the bill that subsidized the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry and didn't do a great job helping seniors with the pharmaceuticals. we could negotiated drug prices. no, they wouldn't do that because the industry didn't like it. pretty consistent theme here about sucking up to the insurance industry. then, 148,000 people in my district now get free preventative care under their insurance. 54 million people across the country. that goes away when their replacement -- when their repeal bill goes through with no replacement. children with pre-existing conditions, 36,000 in my

district have coverage now. 17 million nationwide. tough luck, kids. you're back off the policy here under the republican vision for the future of health insurance. lifetime limits, 230,000 people in my district. 105 million people nationally. people don't know their coverage have lifetime limits until they get a catastrophic illness and the insurance companies stops paying it. you go bankrupt. they want to go back. repeal this horrible obamacare. then, we have the business rebates and on and on and on. this is a view of the world here. let's go back to the dysfunctional system we had before. is obamacare great? no. should we fix it? yes. should we adopt measures that would make it better like taking away the antitrust exemption on the health insurance industry? yes. will they bring those issues up? no. they want to pretend. it's pretend congress day.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, bangladesh national was convicted in 2008 of promoting sexual performance of a child. after he served his sentence in new york, an immigration judge asked islam to be deported back to where he came from but bangladesh wouldn't take back their deviant. they delayed, delayed, delayed until by law he was released back onto the streets of america. as other countries are well aware, u.s. law does not allow indefinite incarceration. six weeks after his release, islam struck again at another

victim. on a cool evening in november in new york, 73-year-old grandmother, lois decker, a mother, a grandmother, retired school cook, a sunday school teacher was walking home from the grocery store. islam stalked her and followed her into her home and murdered the defenseless grandmother. but stealing her life just wasn't enough for him. after islam left her to die, he stole her car and took off in the darkness of the night. the thief, however, wrecked her car. two good samaritans saw the crash and mistakenly stopped to help him. then, being the worthless outlaw he is, he tried to steal their car as well. more witnesses intervened and prevented him from stealing that vehicle, but he still fled the scene in yet another stolen vehicle. in june, a judge in new york sentenced islam to life, where he belongs. mr. speaker, currently there are thousands of criminal illegals in our country, just like islam, that have been sent

to prison, ordered deported, but their native countries stall, delay and eventually refuse to take back their outlaws. many of those criminals are roaming around american streets looking for more crime and malicious mischief. there is more. ashton kline mcmurray, a 16-year-old with palsy, when he came in contact with another dude bad. one day he was walking home from a football game in massachusetts when he was ambushed, beaten, stabbed and murdered by hong, an illegal from cambodia. he was sent to prison and then ordered deported but hong never went back to his native country of cambodia because they wouldn't take him. vietnamese citizen luck was conducted of armed robbery of a chinese restaurant in california in 1996. he was sent to prison for 10 years and then ordered deported back to vietnam.

but once again vietnam would not take him back. so in march of this year, luck was running loose in san francisco and murdered five people. mr. speaker, these are tragic cases that occurred in our nation. there should be consequences for countries like bangladesh, vietnam and cambodia who fail to take back their lawfully deported criminals. the blood of mississippi decker and the other victims are not only the fault of islam and the other felons but their countries. some of the other countries are cuba, pakistan, vietnam, jamaica and yes, our good buddies, the chinese. so what should we do? we should do two things. one, u.s. law should allow civil suits against these offending countries for damages without any caps on compensation. and, two, freeze legal visas to nations that refuse to take

back their criminals. mr. speaker, did you know a similar law already exists in the u.s., but the state department won't enforce the law for supposedly diplomatic reasons. according to secretary napolitano, d.h.s. and the state department are working with these offending countries to resolve these matters. that being the folks that are getting murdered in the u.s. so i've introduced legislation that removes the uncertainty and weak knees of bureaucrats and requires the state department to follow through with visa sanctions against these countries. time to play a little diplomatic hardball with these nations. after all, americans are dying because these lawfully deported illegals don't go back where they come from. it's time to make these crooks and misfits the problem of their own country rather than continue to remain our problem. otherwise, more grandmothers are going to die in america, and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, for five minutes. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. i am here along with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, to address a national crisis that's facing us today. too many of our young african-american and hispanic men cannot read. they're dropping out of school and they're ending up in prison . without the skills to be able to get a job, many of these young men, they lose hope and they resort to crime.

i personally understand to a certain degree what these young men are going through. i lost hope myself in my early 20's. raised as a single child, my parents were deceased by the time i was 19. i dropped out of school, ended up being unemployed, resorted to food stamps. my food stamps were ultimately cut off. at that time i felt i would never make it in life, and i gave up. now, several factors intervened to help save me. one was my godmother. octavia lyons. she wasn't a college graduate or a professional woman. she was a domestic cleaning lady, like my mother, and she was raised and educated in segregated mobile, alabama. she demanded i do something with my life.

the other factor that motivated me directly to go to school again was the fact i was able to go to the detroit public library, i caught the bus and i started reading books on visual artists and it inspired me to go back to school to study fine arts again. but the point is i had the ability to read and reading helped save my life. . i want to yield my time to representative i yield to the gentleman, mr. scott, the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: let me thank mr. clarke for focusing on the issue of education and literacy. i will say as a kid growing up in a single parent household myself living in poverty, i did not value education as a youngster. so by the time i was in high school and flunking out, i failed the ninth grade. i failed world geography, physics, spanish, and english.

when you fail spanish and english, they don't consider you bilingual. they may call you be-ignorant. that's where i found myself. i lost hope in life. i had a mother to believed strongly in the power of education, because of her discipline, involvement, and her focus, i found the path back towards prosperity which started with education. and as chairman of county council a few years ago, i recognize that the incarcerated population of charleston county, was highly represented by young people, mostly men who were mostly illiterate coming from single family households and living in poverty as i did. so the value of education cannot be overemphasized enough and the necessity of public-private partnership to address this issue is an absolute necessity because our nation faces a crisis and i yield back to my good friend, the gentleman from michigan. mr. clarke: thank you, representative scott.

to the american people we want to show that even though this congress many times is divided based on ideology and party, he and i, i'm one of the most liberal members of this house, and my friend the gentleman from south carolina is one of the most conservative, but we both agree, we've got to address this national crisis. we've got to save the lives of our young black and hispanic men. by doing so, we are going to help strengthen our economy, will help create jobs. this was a national call to action for all of us in government, schools, libraries, and business, our charities and our families will all work together to help educate our young men on the value of reading and to teach them to read. i yield back my time to my friend from south carolina. mr. scott: will i say without any question, the issue of education is not a african-american issue. it's not a hispanic issue. it is an american issue. it is an american tradition that all access in this nation, the

power of freedom comes from the power of education. and to the extent that we can stand here together as one of the most conservative members of the house and certainly one of the more liberal members of the house focusing on the same problem, we may not even agree on all the paths to solving this problem, but we can agree on the necessity of addressing the issue of literacy. if we can work together finding paths for the american people to focus their attention, finding paths for congress to focus our attention, we find paths to the solution. mr. clarke: i agree, my brother, aim going to work with you on this. mr. scott: thank you, mr. clarke. mr. clarke: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker a. message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 1379, cited as the d.c. courts and public defender

service act of 2011, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it is with sadness that i rise today to hopor the memory of major ryan s. david of boone, north carolina, who is a member of the north carolina air national guard. on july 1, his charlotte-based c-130 crew crashed in south dakota while battling the state's fire. major david was an experienced navigator who joined the national guard in 2011 after completing active duty service in the u.s. air force. he is survived by his wife and his infant son. along with major david, lieutenant colonel paul michael

of morrisville, major joseph mccore nick of belmont, and senior master sergeant robert cannon of charlotte gave their lives in the service to our country. there is no question of the bravery and commitment of these men and we are very grateful to them. my heart goes out to the families of these heroes and their air national guard colleagues. may god grant them comfort in this time of loss and may he bless the sacrifices of these fallen. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, for five minutes. mr. yarmuth: mr. speaker, every 44 seconds a 2013 ford escape comes off the line at the louisville assembly plant. the escape's parts make their way along 20 miles of conveyors inside a three million square

foot facility that stretches a mile from corner to corner. inside that facility are more than 4,00 people operating state-of-the-art machinery capable of producing six different vehicles. ford has a long and robust history in louisville. they have been manufacturing there since the model t in 1913. the plant opened in 1955 and since then has produced the forward ranger, bronco ii, and explorer to name just a few. across-town the kentucky truck plant has been operating since 1969 and employs nearly 5,000 workers. for years both plants thrived and with them families. just recently a woman who now works at ford told me her dad had worked there for 50 years, stories of ford careers that span lifetimes and generations aren't rare in louisville. there are fathers and daughters who have built careers side by side on the line. but by 2008 the louisville assembly plant was outmoded and

the u.s. economy was in crisis. the plant's future was clouded with uncertainty. workers came to work every day not knowing whether their jobs would be there tomorrow. forward needed to innovate, it needed to produce vehicles that the american people could afford, that were sleeker and more fuel efficient, and met a changing desire among car buyers who wanted more dynamic economical vehicles. but the company needed a financial bridge to do it. in congress i worked to include the advanced technology vehicles' manufacturing mode program in the energy and independence and security act of 2007. ford received a $5.9 billion loan through the program, which allowed the company to invest $00 million in the louisville assembly plant and to remap their future. in three years the louisville assembly plant has gone from uncertainty to complete retooling. last month i was proud to join ford officials and hundreds of workers to invail what is now the biggest, most flexible high volume ford plant in north

america. the plant has hadded more than 3,000 jobs -- has added more than 3,000 jobs and the increases in production having added thousands more of suppliers of which there are 500 for the new escape model alone. ford also worked with the u.a.w. to renegotiate its contract and add a third shift at the plant. by the end of this year the company will employ more than 8,000 people in louisville. the positive relationships forged between organized labor and the -- ford in louisville should serve as a model of compromise and cooperation for the rest of the nation. the escape is a success story of american ingenuity and innovation, for the private sector, organized labor, and the federal government. it's a vick 2ri for -- victory for kentucky. the the plants are expected to contribute more than $800 million to our commonwealth's g.d.p. let's be clear, this happened because of the leadership of ford, u.a.w., and our

unparalleled work force. but none of it would have been possible without key government investments to advance large-scale innovation. some have said we should let the auto industry fail. in louisville that would have met putting thousands of ford workers out on the streets. it would have meant that the thousands of workers and supply companies who provide parts for the escape would be updating their resumes instead of asumbling ford's newest models. it would have an an admission that in america our best manufacturing days are behind us. we are proving that wrong every day in louisville and across the country. over the past 28 months american fafferers have created nearly 500,000 jobs, that's the strongest period of growth in manufacturing employment since 1995. and it's because we are using strategic federal investments to spur innovation and leverage private sector investment. just this month the a.p. reported that ford motor company sales were 7% in june. the reason?

strong demand for the new escape which is selling at a higher rate than ever before. there is still plenty who say government spart of the problem not the solution. since at least the 1940's, we have known the market cannot do it all on its own. and there is a role for government in pursuing short and long-term economic growth and prosperity in this country. you can find it in louisville, ford, and government parters, federal, state, and local have shown just how successful we can be working together to build the vehicles of the future a and innovations to keep our city and country on the leading edge of manufacturing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. last week we received some unemployment numbers. our employment numbers of 80,000 new jobs. it was a bleak statistic telling us that we are in our 41st

straight week of unemployment was above 8%. of course the real unemployment numbers saying there's 23 million americans out of work or looking for work, people who are unemployed or underemployed based upon their skill set and taking whatever job they can get. put that 80,000 new jobs in additional context and it is of deeper concern. this year 3.1 million students graduate interested high school. 1.7 million graduated with a bachelor's degree from a program. add to that list also those with an associate degree or simply dropped out of school, we recognize those 80,000 new jobs are barely a drop in the bucket. also note that among those who are college graduates recently, 53% of them are underemployed, that is working in a job below the qualification levels which they have achieved.

about 1.5 million under age 25 in 2011 were jobless or underemployed, the highest in at least 11 years. in the year 2000, the chair was at a low of 41%. families are concerned because they don't want more unemployment checks when they can be getting an employment check. they need jobs to pay for their food and housing. to pay off loans for their cars and schools. to save something for retirement or save something for other family needs for the future. but put this in the context of other increases families have had to face in the last two years. the increased cost for gasoline in the last three to four years is $2,200 per year per family. the increased cost of electricity with new coal regulations put forth by the e.p.a. will cause the family of electric bills to rise by $300 to $400 per year. the new coal regulations are

estimated to lead to a loss of 180,000 jobs per year. consult is now laying off 118 miners. 750 miners have been laid off in kentucky, west virginia, and virginia. the coal regulations are such through the e.p.a. who had no new coal firepower plant permits granted for the last two years. simply no plants have been built and ones are being closed down. yet we have a massive amount of coal which we can use to create clean energy if the e.p.a. would allow us to build some newer, cleaner plants. you look at the note that sulfur dioxide, there's been a 56% decrease and with nitrous dioxide a 38% decrease since the 1970's, while coal has tripled in its use. mercury emission vs. decreased by 60% since the 1950's, and we can do better.

we also note that we can have new jobs from offshore drilling, although the house has passed such legislation, the senate and the white house have blocked it. if we drill for oil and natural gas, several things can happen. one, it can free up 2 $2.5 trillion which we can use to invest in infrastructure, roads, highways, and bridges, and locks, and dams, and water and sewer projects. but as long as those areas are blocked, we cannot reap the benefits from that. instead, we continue to spend money to protect opec oil fields and have a trade deficit of $127 billion last year with opec. and sadly of course there is that unmeasurable cost of having our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines fight overseas and fighting taliban and al qaeda funded with opec oil profits. finally, we have the increased cost of health insurance, keyser family foundation estimated cost

-- kaiser family foundation estimated the cost to the overage family about $10,000 more. and immediate yun income for families is down $4,00. there are solutions that the house, senate, white house can work at together but much of this in the area is using our domestic energy and stop saying no to domestic energy. although an all-of-the-above policy that includes wind and solar is valuable, we cannot create jobs by also saying no to coal, 10 federal agencies trying to block natural gas drilling, and everyone dropping the ability to drill for oil. we have solutions, we have answers. we only have to have the twoil pass it. with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for five minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. american women have been outraged about republican

attacks on reproductive health this term. we saw it in the decision that was later reversed by the susan g. komen for the cure when they had to -- when they initially pulled funding for planned parenthood for breast cancer screenings. and we saw it again in republican attempts to defund planned parenthood and then again to block access to contraceptives as part of health insurance. more seriously, beneath the radar there has been a far right-wing campaign as announced by anti-choice forces that will emerge today in the markup of h.r. 3803, a frontal

attack on abortion rights as guaranteed by roe vs. wade. representative trent franks, the sponsor of 3803, and anti-choice forces have unleashed a full-fledged attack on roe and the nation's women using women in the nation's capital as pawns. the district of columbia paying capable unborn child protection act, a bill without any scientific basis, seeks to ban all abortions in the district of columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy with new very limited exceptions. however, roe vs. wade requires viability to be determined only by a physician and not by statute. although the bill is not only

addressed to women in the district of columbia, it association to rally the most extreme republicans by achieving a federal -- however bogus or limited for use in an ongoing campaign across the nation to get states to defy the law of the land under roe vs. wade. several conservative states have already passed similar laws, but neither congressional republicans nor anti-choice organizations have the nerve to proceed in the usual way with a post-20 week ban bill. because they know women and their supporters would agely turn back such an attack -- angryly turn back such an

attack on roe vs. wade. citizens who live in the nation's capital paying federal taxes, go to war, demand to have their laws respected, especially by unaccountable members of congress. by moving the post-20-week abortion ban, only in conservative states and targeting the district which has no vote on such a bill on this floor even though it affects only our residents, republicans show they lack the courage of their own convictions and the courage to make this bill nationally. even in a republican-controlled house where they would surely win. they target the district of columbia women because they fear the wrath of the nation's women, a nationwide bill would surely bring.

well, we will not stand by as republicans who claim to favor small and local government, attempt to pass legislation affecting my constituents but not theirs in an act of disdain for the federalist principles they profess. fortunately, this bill, markup today, has helped us and pro choice organizations and american women alert -- alert women across the united states. that the d.c. label on this bill is a cover for a bill that seeks to undermine the reproductive rights of women in the united states across our country. women have been watching closely ever since the first attacks on reproductive health in this house this term.

with the post-two-week abortion bill, republicans have left no -- post-20-week abortion bill, republicans have no doubt that reproductive rights depends upon a democratic congress and a democratic president. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize allen lamb, the president and c.e.o. of ag choice, who will retire at the end of the year after decades of service to the agriculture community. ag choice is an agriculture credit association that provides a broad range of financial services to farmers and foresters all across pennsylvania. under allen's leadership, ag choice has become a leading institution, supporting the credit needs of farmers as well as the mortgage credit needs of rural homeowners for communities across the fifth district of pennsylvania and throughout the greater commonwealth of pennsylvania. even under a tough economy, ag

choice has consistently stayed financially sound while offering outstanding service and support to our agriculture communities. with 32 years of service in the farm credit system, allen has spent his professional career as a champion for agriculture and the individual farmer. we owe him a great deal of thanks for his tireless work and his committed leadership. i want to thank you for your service, allen, wish you well in your retirement and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, for five minutes. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, the republican majority of this house is holding the american people and its economy hostage in a cynical ploy to keep the economy from growing and creating jobs. in the year 2000, 12 years ago, the federal budget had a $258 billion surplus that was the district result of having created 22 million private

sector jobs under the clinton administration. new road and bridge projects were funded, and american businesses were providing the labor and equipment to help rebuild the nation's infrastructure. in the year 2001, the new republican administration came in and looted a surplus they didn't create to fund two tax cuts we couldn't afford and two wars that took over $1 trillion out of the american economy. they ruined the american economy by losing more jobs than in any period in the past 60 years and created a financial crisis not seen since the great depression. the republican party and the failed policies took us from record surplus to record deficits. in 2009, the republicans handed this mess over to the current president and vowed not to help him rebuild this nation and its economy. they have created a phony debt limit crisis that reverberated throughout the american economy and the financial markets.

the debt ceiling crisis cost american investors $18 million and led to a downgrade of the nation's credit rating. this debt limit crisis imposed a tax on the american people that did real and permanent damage. default or the threat of default will exact more economic damage on an already fragile economy, and they're threatening to do it again later this year. this despite the fact that the house republican budget resolution spends $1 trillion, $1 trillion more than it takes into ref -- takes in revenues. the republican budget is to raise the debt ceiling. we need to nation build right here in america. our nation's roads and bridges are falling apart. you have 69,000 structurally deficient bridges in this nation. every second of every day seven cars drive on a bridge that is structurally deficient. the senate and the house just passed a $105 billion

transportation bill to spend less than $53 billion in each of the next two years. while it is something, it is weak. in fact, it's pa theycally weak -- pa theycally weak -- pathetically weak. it won't put a dent in the unemployment rate. we need to do nation building here at home, here in america. congress just spent $65 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of iraq, a nation of 26 million people. you just spent $78 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of afghanistan, a nation of 30 million people, and all you can come up with is $53 billion for nation building in america, our nation, a nation of over 300 million people. the american society of civil engineers gave us a d grade and they and the united states chamber of commerce agree that

the poor quality of the roads loses billions of dollars in lost growth. we need to invest in rebuilding the roads, bridges and water system of our country. according to the new america foundation, a five-year $1.2 trillion american rebuilding plan would create 27 million jobs in the first year alone. the economy would add 5.2 million jobs or 533,000 jobs each month. and the economy would grow by over $400 billion. unemployment will be reduced to 6.2% in the first year alone. and 5.6% in the second year. this is a real and compelling jobs plan. the best tax policy is to bring back into the economy lost taxpayers and to buy labor, materials, equipment and services from american small businesses.

it didn't work in japan in the 1990's. it's not working in europe and the united states today. to grow the economy we need to invest and save. house republicans need to stop whining about china and stand up for america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers, for five minutes. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. the house and congress this week should pass the health care repeal bill because the president's health care bill is making the economy worse. i saw a recent poll that said 50% of small businesses are less likely to hire new employees because of the health care bill. as an example in my district, i spoke to a small business owner who's scared to hire his 50th employee because it would subject his economy to the mandates under the health care law. greg for theny, who is a small business owner, told me his

great concerns about the health care law, he said it would prevent him from expanding his operations and giving his employees a chance to grow their own businesses. to comply with the health care law, it would take all of the profits from his business, his annual profits just to comply. we need small business owners focused on creating jobs, not worrying about complying with a new mandate, and it will tax our families that are struggling. just last night on a telephone town hall i heard from a real estate agent who was concerned about the 3.8% tax on sales of homes that would go into effect in january of 2013 on $100,000 home, that's $3,800, and it could make the difference between somebody being able to sell their home for a profit and a loss. so this isn't on the gain. this is on the net price. it has nothing to do with the health care bill. it was just a way to pay for the extra costs in the bill. the bottom line is the health

care bill is making the economy worse. it's hurting job creators, and it's hurting our struggling families and hurting real estate values. we need to repeal it and start over by focusing on cutting costs in our health care system and improving the efficiency. if we have a real crisis in health care, it's the crisis of cost. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wilson. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, obamacare was coined by the republicans to mark the wonderful affordable care act passed by congress in 2010 and

signed into law by president obama. the recent supreme court decision proves that obamacare was the perfect nickname because president obama cares. he cares about you. he cares about me. he cares about my friends on the democratic side of the aisle and he cares about my friends on the republican side of the aisle. . he cares about all americans. president obama cares about us and he thinks that we should not have to worry about going broke just because someone in our family gets sick. because obama care, every american has the right to affordable health care, and yet the republicans hate it with every fiber of their being. why? don't republicans get sick, too? don't republicans worry about having to file for bankruptcy just because someone in their family gets sick? don't republicans go to the

emergency room with no insurance? later this week the republicans will vote to repeal a law that will proves that obamacare, not repeal and replace as they said they would do when they made their plans to america, just repeal. in other words, get rid of it, period. how can the republicans explain to their constituents the repeal of a law that affords health care for everyone? are you trying to -- are they trying to send a message that republicans don't need health care? republicans are not robots. they get sick. they need surgery. they feel pain. they hurt. they cry. they mourn. they weep. access to affordable health care is a basic right, it's not a republican right, a democratic right, or an independent right. it's a basic right for all americans. hello? if you are out there somewhere

in america today and you feel you don't need health care because you are invincible, well, you are not. do you feel that the rest of us should pay your medical bills? enough of that already. do you feel that those less fortunate should suffer needlessly? then you need to pray to your god for forgiveness. you must care. you must care about the less fortunate, the working poor, the foster child, the disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill, the harmless. those racked with pain. and all of congress must care. the affordable care act shows that obama care, he cares enough to include a provision that ensures our children can no longer be denied health care because of a pre-existing condition. obamacare is enough to include a

provision that allows students and young people under 26 to stay on their parents' health insurance plan no matter where they live. obamacares enough to add language that closes the medicare doughnut hole so that seniors pay less for their prescription drugs. they no longer have to decide whether to fill their prescriptions or buy food. obamacare is enough to put in provisions that says insurance companies cannot crop your coverage when you get sick or prohibit insurance companies from placing annual and lifetime limits on your health care. life is so unpredictable. and obamacare is enough to include a provision that prevents insurance companies from charging higher premiums for women just because they happen to be women. the laws of our land says that if you have a car you must insure that car.

if you have a mortgage, you must insure that mortgage. if you have a body, insure it. keep it healthy. get your checkup. take your medications. what is more important to you? your luxury car, your beautiful house, or healthy body? every member of congress has wonderful health care insurance, and it's so cheap it's unbelievable. it's simply great being covered by my health care in congress. shouldn't we warrant the same for our constituents who sent us here to serve them? shouldn't we care? president obama cares, nancy pelosi cares, steny hoyer cares, james clyburn cares, john larson cares, and i care. republicans out there, can you hear me? you should make all members of

the u.s. house of representatives care. contact and let them know that everyone needs the same health care amenities that they enjoy. don't be hoodwinked by the people. listen to the facts. read the fine print. you deserve access to affordable health care. you need affordable care. power to the people, power to obamacare. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, there is a very compelling op-ed piece in the "washington post" last week by u.s. ambassador to afghanistan, ryan crocker. in it he paid tribute to the many american civilians horrificing their lives doing important humanitarian work to bring security and stability to afghanistan.

i couldn't agree more with ambassador crocker that those men and women working for or contracting with the state department or usaid are doing extraordinary work. rebuilding infrastructure, helping children to go to school, improving infant and maternal health, wiring the afghan people to the internet. mr. speaker, the burning question is this, if this work is so important, why aren't we doing more of it? the human need in afghanistan is far greater than the resources we are devoting to the effort. for the last few years, we have had a military surge in afghanistan. a surge that's led to more deaths, more violence, more instability, and more strength for the extremists and insurgents forces we are trying to defeat.

what we need, mr. speaker, is a civilian surge. we need a great emphasis on development and diplomacy. on democracy promotion and debt relief. on peacekeeping and conflict resolution. not just in afghanistan, but in impoverished and unstable countries around the developing world. all of this is at the heart of the smart security proposal that i have been promoting since 2004, that i introduced during the middle of the iraq war. contrary to the conventional wisdom we have been fed, military aggression does not advance our national security goals. it undermines them. it makes us less safe, not more. it emboldens terrorists instead of them -- we tried it this way for more than a decade now, mr. speaker, and it simply has not

worked. it hasn't fundamentally changed the fortunes of the afghan people. and it hasn't driven the taliban and other terrorist networks into oblivion. at an international conference on aid to afghanistan this past weekend, secretary of state clinton said the administration would request afghanistan aid funding at or near levels provided over the last decade. but at or near is not enough. it comes somewhere between $1 billion to $4 billion a year, which seems like a lot of money until you realize that's what we spend on military operations in afghanistan roughly every week or so. $10 billion a month waging a destructive war on afghanistan that is killing civilians, but only a few billion dollars a year rebuilding afghanistan and

empowering civilians. that just doesn't make sense. ambassador crocker has pointed this out. our priorities are totally out of whack. we can't continue on the same current destructive course, mr. speaker. this military occupation is failing america and failing afghanistan. let's finally end this war. let's bring our troops safely home and start investing in civilian aid and other smart security initiatives. and let's do it now and let's also expand these initiatives to prevent war around the world. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, for five minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. it's unfortunate that we are here once again talking about

repealing the affordable care act. a bill that passed almost two years ago and as we all know was recently upheld by the united states supreme court. we should be focusing on jobs and the economy. the repeal bill we are about to vote on isn't going to go anywhere and we all know that. it won't pass the senate and it won't be signed into law. we could be real things to help americans and the economy right now, but instead here we are for the 31st time voting on the same things. so instead of repeal, let's talk about the benefits to americans the affordable care act has implemented because it will result in more people having access to health care, the affordable care act will change the life of millions of people. it will prevent more of the heartwrenching stories like those we all hear about the consequences of lack of access to health care. i know someone whose life would have been changed by the affordable care act.

bob in oregon lost his job and because he lost his job he lost his health insurance. so he got on to cobra and had that expensive option for a while, but at least it gave him coverage, but then his cobra ran out for him just as it did for so many other people. and he was forced to live without health insurance. it was quite a risk that he had to take and it didn't work out so well for him. like many people without insurance, he had medical troubles but he put off treatment, hoping for the best. in the end, though, he ended up in the emergency room, exactly what the affordable care act is designed to prevent. he had surgery, and was in the hospital for almost a month. because of the sky-high medical bills, he almost lost his home. fortunately he's doing ok today, but it was a very close call. this would not have happened under the affordable care act and it will not happen under the affordable care act. bob will have access to

affordable health care coverage. he would not have put off preventive care which is covered under the affordable care act. he would have seen his doctor at the first sign of a problem. he would not have ended up in the emergency room. which raises health care costs for everyone. a cost shift that the afford and care act is designed to prevent. he would not have come so close to losing his home. the benefits of the affordable care act are undeniable. already in my home state of oregon, 43,000 young people have taken advantage of the opportunity to stay on their parents' health plan. children can't be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. 54 million americans now receive free preventive care, and that's just after two years. there are more and more benefits that will be implemented over the next several years, insurers will no longer be able to discriminate against women. insurance marketplaces called exchanges will be created to

ensure that everyone has access to affordable health insurance options. and starting just next month, women will have access to free preventive health care and contraception, all of these are put into place, and as they are more people will see how the affordable care act positively affects their health and their wallets. repealing the affordable care act has no benefit. in fact, doing so would take away every single benefit i just mentioned and according to the congressional budget office, the repeal will increase the deficit, increase the deficit, $210 billion over the next 10 years. we can all agree that such an increase is unacceptable and fiscally irresponsible. so, this will mark the 31st time that the house has voted on some form of repeal of the affordable care act. i hope it's the last so we can focus more on the things that really matter. with that i yield back my time.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about what is nothing less than the largest transfer of the american people's wealth from main street to wall street. the largest transfer in american history due to the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008. banks at the heart of the crisis all got larger. as their c.e.o.'s made more money, while average citizens saw their incomes stall or drop, or be eliminated, and communities across this country hit hard by their losses. recently, the federal reserve issued a startling report that showed the net worth of the average american family fell by as much as 40% during the last three years, but i can tell you

the banks and speculators at the heart of this crisis that has hurt us all have all done better. it's really startling. the 2010 numbers set families, ordinary middle class families, back by nearly two decades. america's middle class was the hardest hit. and while many families saw losses in their retirement savings, they saw their home worth go down, so many millions lost jobs, the majority of the damage nationwide was caused by the collapse of the housing market because the largest form of savings that any family actually accumulates is in the ownership of their home. according to the federal reserve, the median value of american's stake in their homes fell by 42%, nearly half, between 2007 and 2010 by -- to about $55,000. those are startling figures. while we have seen wages stagnate, for the vast majority

of americans over the past three decades, median income fell nearly 8% in 2010 to $45,800. our citizens are meeting the crisis in my opinion with great resolve and dignity. but those largely responsible for their situation have averted any real responsibility and scrutiny. let's just take a look. . they remained on the same wrung on the economic ladder. most have fallen down. but as the federal reserve's data showed, not everyone lost in the recession. the median net worth of the wealthiest among us, the millionaires and billionaires who helped cause the crisis actually rose. moreover, the value of some at the very top have been obscene. i think you'd say it's un-american. let's take a look at the top executives on wall street. how did they fair when most americans lost decades worth of

their hard-earned savings? reportedly, the chief executive officer of jpmorgan, jamie diamon,'s take for 2011 was a whooping $23.1 million. let me pull this over. $23.1 million. that's just, you know, the take-home. not all the stock options and everything else. i wonder if he thinks that's enough. his salary went up 11%. 11% more even though jpmorgan recently admitted to trading losses over $2 billion. how would you like that job? he got paid more. the institution lost money. but of course it got bigger. it became one of the big six. mr. dimon is not alone in taking home millions more. while most americans lost their life savings, john stumf from wells fargo, he earned $19.8

million for one year. $19.8. lloyd blankfein from goldman sachs took home $16.2 million. that was his salary. his compensation reportedly rose by 14.5% last year. isn't that interesting. who among us could have that kind of position? this transfer of american wealth have left most communities with abandoned commercial strips, high unemployment, soaring public debt, cars that have been confiscated sitting on lots and back of banks. and loss of infrastructure. there is something really wrong here. in this body we continue to debate how to get our fiscal house in order, but republicans have been unwilling to negotiate. last year we saw how house republicans gambled with our economy. they rejected plan after plan to raise the debt ceiling and

responsibly balance the budget by putting both spending cuts and revenues on the table. because they were protecting these people and their like at any cost, including those who get special tax breaks and take millions even when their companies do poorly or fail. why are the interests of the privileged money baron put before everyone else? how republicans refuse to provide tax relief for working families unless we give even more tax breaks to the superwealthy. we need to get our priorities straight. we need to get our fiscal house in order. we need a smart approach that puts revenues and spending cuts on the table and focus on job creation, and we need to hold these americans accountable for the damage they have done and let them carry their fair share of the burden. mr. speaker, i yb and will ask unanimous consent to -- i yield back the balance of my time and i will ask unanimous consent to place information in the record. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, for five minutes. ms. schakowsky: you know, i am well aware of the fact that there are many americans when they hear the word obamacare, they think, oh, somehow it's a takeover by the government of our freedom, of our health care , but i'm hoping that people will take another look now that the supreme court has declared this to be the law of the land and see what the advantages are for you, for individuals. what can you see it really mean? for example, if you're a woman, did you know that women -- being a woman is like being a pre-existing condition because over a life ittime women pay about 48% more for their health insurance than men do.

that is ended right now because of obamacare. and did you know if you're a woman you're now able to get life-saving preventive services like a mammogram? you can go in now and get a mammogram at no cost because it's a pre -- it's a preventive service under obamacare. if you're a parent and you have a child with a disability, right now you are able to have that child insured. they cannot be excluded because they have a pre-existing condition. and, of course, that meant so much to the mother of olivia. let me just read you olivia's mom's story. olivia suffered a stroke at birth, and now she's 11 years old. she has multiple health issues including epilepsy and cognitive delays and creeble

palsy. -- cerebal palsy. obamacare means she won't have a lifetime limit. and that's true of everyone now in america. there is no lifetime limit on her insurance coverage. and so both of olivia's parents have switched jobs since having olivia and each time they switched they had to fight to get the needed coverage for their daughter due to her pre-existing condition. imagine the relief they don't have to do that, and no one with a child with a disability has to do that any more. this idea of government takeover is just not true. you will still be able to choose your providers, all the decisions you really want to take are not going to be taken away. you will be able to choose your insurance company. you'll be put into, if you

can't afford it, into an exchange where you still get to choose a variety of insurance companies and if you can't afford the premiums, the government will help you do that. and by the way, all members of congress will be required to be in those health exchanges. so you won't be able to say that, oh, well the members of congress, they're taking care of themselves with their great health benefits. which by the way, is the same of all federal workers. we pay our premiums. we pay our co-pays. but still we're going to be required. we're the only americans that are going to be required to be in those health exchanges. so you can be assured that we're going to be making sure that we're taken care of ourselves as well as all other americans. now under the health care -- under obamacare, my son the other day on his birthday -- he's an adult -- said thank

you, mom. i just found out that my business -- he's small business owner. he owns a tropical fish store in chicago. he says, i just found out from my accountant that i received a pretty hefty tax credit because that's what's given now to small businesses under obamacare. and so the idea that somehow small businesses are going to be hurt because of obamacare, the opposite is true. this is right now helping small businesses with a -- with a tax cut. a couple more examples. a constituent, jerry m., said my 24-year-old daughter does not make enough money to pay for individual health care. she became very ill with a throat abscess and almost died. if it weren't for obamacare, she would not be covered under my husband's insurance plan. then, if we had not been able to get her into an excellent

hospital that saved her, she might have died. that's no longer true. you don't have to worry about that. you can stop worrying about going bankrupt over health care costs. here's from a senior. my drugs are over $4,000 a year or more, and i hit the doughnut hole, meaning a gap in coverage, and the senior has to pay on her own. and i hit the doughnut hole by july or august and has -- but because of obamacare, paying 50%, it's very helpful to me. it probably saves me $1,200 or more a year. i'm -- she's an example of someone who is saving money right now because of obamacare. take another look. i think it's really going to alleviate your worry about health care costs for your family and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, for five minutes. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, i request to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the latest republican attempt to repeal the affordable care act and to block meaningful health care reform. the affordable care act has been upheld by the highest court, the united states supreme court, and found that this legislation was constitutional. i rise today to stress my support of the affordable care act and my opposition to the legislation brought before us today. this legislation addresses the affordable health care act, the millions of uninsured americans, it strengthens the medicare system, it relieves americans of the growing financial burden and medical costs of insurance that many find tough to bear. now, let me talk a little bit

about my district in california. in the 37th congressional district, the benefits of this bill are already undisputable. 23,000 children and 90,000 adults now have health care insurance that covers preventative services with no co-pays, co-insurance or deductibles. 501 small businesses receive tax credits that help them to maintain or to expand their health care coverage for their employees. and health care providers in my district have received 3.4 million dollars in affordable care grants since 2010 to support community health centers, to develop innovative and cost-saving health care delivery systems and to train our new health care professionals. these statistics are not unique to my district. there are similar success stories emerging all over the country. let me speak a little bit about some of those general things that are happening. if you're a senior, based upon now in the affordable care act, you are receiving a 50% discount on brand-name drugs

when you're in medicare and you experience the doughnut hole coverage gap. you have three key preventative services such as mammograms, colonoscopies and a free annual well visit with your physician. if you're a woman, you now have free coverage of life-saving preventative services such as mammograms and beginning in august, free coverage will also include additional comprehensive women preventative services including breast-feeding support, contraception and domestic violence screening. if you're a parent and if you have a child who's under the age of 19, they can't be denied coverage by an insurance company because of a pre-existing condition. if you're an adult, you can now join or stay on your parent's health plan until you are 26 years old. those are for our young adults. and if you're a small business owner, you would be one of the millions who would be eligible as a small business owner to receive tax credits if you choose to offer coverage to your employees.

mr. speaker, the affordable care act was a long overdue bill that corrects deep injustices and access to health care. the affordable care act should be the -- should be an act that is respected and upheld by this house. it has gone through the proper channels of legislation and now has been validated by the united states supreme court. mr. speaker, all americans, young, old, rich and poor have all inalienable right to health care and to be able to prosper and to be able to prosper you need to be healthy to do so. i ask my colleagues to support the affordable care act, to join me in fierce opposition to repealing the advances in health care that we already won. and now when we look forward we must focus on implementing the affordable care act and now focus on getting americans back to work. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. >> mitt romney and president obama are campaigning. mitt romney holding a town meeting in colorado. it is the first town hall meeting since ohio in may. we will have live coverage.

also on c-span3, we will have live reports -- remarks from president obama on extending middle-class tax cuts for families. he will be speaking at a campaign event in cedar rapids, iowa. that is scheduled for 1:50 eastern. the house is coming back at noon eastern today. we will have live coverage. one item on the agenda is the republican-led repeal of the health care law. we talked about this morning with our guest on "washington journal." host: louise radnofsky is here to talk about the supreme court ruling. a recent headline from a story that you wrote says the battle enters the next round. . i want to read the lead and get you to discuss it.

you are right about employers and others and going for an advantage as the government sets the policies that will bring the law to life. take us from the supreme court ruling to implementation. tell us how that happens. then we can talk about the lobbying effort. guest: you want to go back to the 18 months before it was passed. the law the was passed was a big package of arrangements made with a lot of people. now that the law is upheld, a lot of people want to try to renegotiate the bargains cut. for employers, the key issue is a requirement for a workplace with 50 or more employees to pay

a level of coverage or a penalty. they want changes to the regulations, primarily about how the law will wind up treating people who are temporary. this is a big issue for retail. there are folks that sued to prevent the law from going ahead to challenge it in court. the law our balls around the idea that individuals carry insurance or pay a fee. failing that, they would like it to be modified in their favor as much as they can get. the phone numbers are at the bottom of the screen.

talk to us about insurers and hospitals and how the lobbying efforts are taking shape. >> their concern before the supreme court ruled was that the justices might strike a requirement that everyone carry coverage but leave in place the requirements that they sell insurance to people regardless of medical history. they say the fee is not going to be very big. they are concerned about requirements based on how they vary premiums based on age. this is something you are likely to hear a lot about in coming months. it is the next step in their campaign and something they

plan to focus on heavily. while these laws are still being drafted, there is a chance to influence congress. hospitals, the original requirement was $155 billion in cuts. it was not going to be bad because they expected to get a large increase in the medicaid population. that would mean fewer people without insurance. with emergency care, they have to treat regardless of ability to pay. now medicaid is in doubt. some states have indicated they will not take the extension money like florida and texas. hospitals are saying you have to roll back the cuts. they are pressuring governors to take the money. drugmakers want provisions that affected them negatively to be rolled back, likewise medical device makers. there is a tax there

campaigning for. they have support of democrats in states like minnesota and massachusetts. they rely heavily on the industry. they see this as one area where they may be able to get bipartisan consensus around repealing part of the law on something the white house is not keen to see. host: any sense of how much money will be spent on lobbying efforts? guest: there was a tremendous amount spent the first time around. i am sure you can expect to see that again. plus all of the campaign dollars on this. it will be a major theme in campaigns heading into november. it will likely be in the millions. host: willis, a democrat, for louise radnofsky. are you there?

caller: about the lobbying, the insurance companies for years ran the price up to where we cannot afford to buy insurance. for the republicans not agreeing on this, it is beyond me. now the affordable care act is helping me. it is helping 30 million other americans. it seems like insurance company should be in favor of that. the more people that have insurance, it is better for the insurance companies. the price makes it more affordable for more people to afford it. i appreciate my call. guest: that gets to the heart of what democrats had in mind when they designed a lot that was a

series of compromises. in the case of insurance companies, new requirements were put in place on how much money they have to spend on health care benefits or issue a refund. it was around 85%. in exchange, they got millions of their customers. that was what was at stake in the supreme court case. host: you write the white house gave lobbyists hope they can win changes to the law of the president said he wanted to improve the legislation signed in 2010. federal officials can materially change it. guest: the president did signal on the thursday the supreme court ruled that he was open to improving the bill. that is something people jumped on as their inspiration for this. they had been lobbying for a

while before. they complained the oxygen was sucked out of the room because of the impending supreme court decision. there's a lot of activity to come. there are the behind-the-scenes negotiations yet to be seen as well as things only congress can change. host: independent caller, go ahead. caller: i am thinking about how the law can be repealed now that has been approved by the highest court. guest: the vote taking place on capitol hill this week is another vote by house republicans. it will be their 31st vote to repeal the law. they do face limited ways of being able to go ahead with that. the democratic senate will not go with it. the white house will not sign it. for republicans, the main strategy is to take back the senate and take the white house.

without that, they do not have a lot of options. the head of freedomworks explained the options if that did not happen. it is not good for them. host: democrats could team up with republicans on specific parts of the law. what are you expecting? guest: the tax is an area people are watching where you might find democrats that feel they need to support it. that is one of the likeliest areas of bipartisan support. whether it happens before november is a different issue. democrats want to stop talking about health care. they want to move the conversation forward. republicans want to talk about repealing it but not necessarily fixing it. host: what happens to employers?

guest: the requirement is that offer a set level of coverage. it has to be affordable. that is measured in a complicated way. there is a penalty for firms that do not offer coverage at all. there's a penalty for firms that do not offer coverage that is affordable. it goes up to $3,000 depending on circumstances. in many cases, it is cheaper than paying for insurance. insurance comes with certain tax benefits and protections. it is also a benefit that many companies voluntarily offer because they see it is a way of retaining them. host: talk about nfib. small business is an interesting aspect. they tend to be more concerned about the law. large employers are already voluntarily offering coverage that meets the requirement. they do not see a huge amount of

change. there is some uncertainty that has them nervous. for small business people, they do not tend to like the law as much. they tend to express it more forcefully. if they have more than 50 workers, they are mandated to provide coverage. for firms that are much smaller, they feel the insurance market has not been good to them because group buying premiums tend to vary more. they feel the bad experience is not likely to be improved by the law. host: let's hear from iowa where shirley is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i hope you give me a chance to make my point. i take the "wall street journal" and sometimes the

"financial times." hello? when i take the "wall street journal," it is outspoken against health care and medicare for everybody. when i take the financial times, they say we would save billions of dollars a year if we would go for medicare for everybody. the only people losing would be the people who are advertising heavily, the medical insurance companies including the one i used to work for that charges 60% overhead. health care companies charge such high overheads that they cannot afford to pay out the money they take in for the people's health care. we are 40th down from the top in our health care scheme in this country.

they say you should invest in socialist countries because they have better growth. guest: the key issue is cost control as far as lawmakers and policy advocates are concerned. the help what does not tackle -- the health law does not tackle costs directly. there are provisions designed at making it more efficient. the main mechanism at its disposal for trying to bring costs down is expanding coverage, the idea being if more people have insurance, the costs of uncompensated care will

be passed on. -- will not be passed on. conservatives dispute this. there are concerned coverage does not give people in the skin in the game. it is an argument that will play out for years. the data remains vague. it does not tell us what people are spending on and whether it is good or where it is headed. this is one we will be fighting about for a long time. host: this is from "the new york times." what does long war mean in this context? guest: the nfib have been more pragmatic than the white house. the white house insisted it did not have backup plans and would win. it said it was confident what ever happened would be ok. the public statements reflected this. the nfib discussed alternative options before they knew they would have to use them. the main thing they stressed was the employer mandate.

they will make that the major part of their campaign running up to the elections. republicans say just because the court upheld the law does not mean is a good law and they should repeal it. the focus to getting rid of it shifts back to congress. host: how certain are you that consumers are clear on what the law means to them? a recent piece you wrote was regarding consumers. what should they know will be -- or be thinking about? guest: some of the consumer- oriented provisions have taken effect. people do not necessarily associate them to the law. --ter's attribute this to supporters attribute this tothe relative lack of popularity. preventive services without out of pocket costs has gotten some attention in recent months because contraception is now

included. that is one part of the law already in effect. one of the most successful from a public relations aspect is the requirement insurance companies allow parents to enroll their children up to 26. this is something a large number of people seem to know about. they are supportive of it. it tended to be cheap because most people getting in world are -- getting enrolled are young and healthy. it has been one of the successes of the law. it is widely popular. it is something democrats bring up as a way of attacking republicans. host: our guest is the health policy reporter for "wall street journal." she studied at oxford and columbia journalism school. louise radnofsky has worked as a reporter and editor in london

for "the guardian" website. more calls for our guest now. florida, independent, good morning. caller: i want to thank you for taking my call. i want to say to mrs. radnofsky that i believe the editorial integrity of the "wall street journal" has slipped since rupert murdoch took it over. the lobbyists lobbied the congressmen and senators. what i would love to see is our elected representatives put their money where their mouth is. if you are against this law, resign your federal medical benefits and go and this -- in this wonderful free market that

you espouse. most of your middle-aged and probably have medical conditions. good luck. thank you. guest: this turns out to be one of the more popular political messages. members of congress will have to have the same health care as everybody else past 2014 when the new exchanges are being run. this concerns some members and their staff. it was very popular with voters. members of congress have access to the federal employees health plan, a wide range of plans from which they can pick. the blue cross-blue shield plans dominate. members of congress tend to use these. that will change in 2014. you will hear some are doing from democrats that republicans are trying to go back to the old way for themselves. host: michael, republican, good

morning. caller: i would like to talk about the doctor-patient relationship. i am a disabled veteran. over the last two months, we have a va clinic down here that have six doctors. over the last six months, four of the doctors have left. i inquired about how come they left. no one will give me straight answer at the va. i have a very good relationship with my doctor to the point where he would call me at home and we would discuss things. very good. i go in last month. all the doctors left. i get a physician's assistant. it has taken me 20 years to get my medication street. -- straight. i take five or six different medications. the first thing this woman does and does not know me at all, she changes every one of my

medications. now i am fighting with the va because my stomach is messed up. the medications are affecting me differently. the va does not care. it is doing the obama health care thing. this is what is going to happen to under this obama plan. doctors are going to leave. you are going to get stuck with these people who do not know you at all. they are going to tell you what they are going to do for you, not that you have any input but -- at all. the only person it affects is the patient because the patient has no say in anything anymore. the government is going to tell you this is the medication you are going to take and that is it.

host: louise radnofsky. guest: there is a shortage of doctors already. there are concerns with millions more getting insurance and access to care with pent-up demand, there will be even more demand for doctors. the pipeline is relatively restricted. there are an infinite number of -- a finite number of medical school places a year. whether they can get up to capacity fast enough is a question. it is not clear what happened at your clinic or whether it is related to the law. but doctors are retiring. we're short of doctors for the demand. what happens will be a concern. there are concerns about whether doctors will accept medicare, medicaid given the rates of reimbursement. that is another thing that has people who are concerned about this up at night. host: we have about 15 minutes left with our guest.

is unravel the right word? guest: i am not sure that is the right word. i think the best way to look at the british system is that it is different. it comes out of a very different context, history, and time period around world war ii. in the states, the employer- sponsored system has grown up. it was reformed and overhauled in march of 2010. it has been the focus of the overhaul efforts here for years. host: one viewer want you to speak of the religious exemption in obamacare. that is their word. guest: that is the requirement that they include birth and control. it applies to most employers. it does not apply to churches. it is a major concern.

it will apply to a catholic hospitals and charities. it is a concern for catholic employers the run secular businesses. the example of the church offers is the taco bell owner who is a catholic. this is an area of controversy. there has been a proposed compromise supported by catholics. a key supporter has backed away from the compromise. there are growing concerns. now that the dust is settling, i would not be surprised if we're talking about this soon. host: gary, independent, huntington beach, california. thank you for waiting.

caller: the health care bill is a scam. though lobbyists did it. they set it up that way. it is called the affordable care act. if they wanted to make it affordable, why not just give the opportunity to the individual taxpayer and employee the ability to deduct the expense instead of taxing anything they pay on their own. that income is taxable. all they have to do is -- obviously the lobbyists are in cahoots with the government. it is ridiculous. if you have a deduction, it would be affordable. you could buy catastrophic insurance. they rigged the game. they made it so you cannot

afford it. then they say we're going to fix it and make it affordable. it is a giant scam. you know, miss radnofsky, you are an intelligent person. surely you understand and see that. could you comment on that? host: he is somewhat beside himself. a big scam he says. guest: what you will hear from mitt romney is something along these lines. there has been debate over how to treat individuals that do not get insurance through their employers and do not have the same tax advantage situation as people who do. you could argue they are more in need of help. the individual market is harder

to navigate. this is something john mccain mentioned in 2008. we might hear it from mitt romney as he unveils his replacement. when the law was crafted, they decided to go down other ways of overhauling the individual and small group insurance market. this is the law we ended up with. host: jeremy is on the line from washington, d.c., a democrat. caller: i wondered if the guest could comment upon the fact that this individual mandate was not necessarily a new idea with this democratic administration. republicans in the mid-1990s offered this as an alternative to clinton's idea to fix health care. i wondered if she could comment on what went wrong.

is it just because this was a given street -- democratic administration offering it that the republicans decided it was a bad idea. guest: this is something democrats argue a lot. the obama administration argues it and likes to point it out frequently. the republicans say the suggestion was a specific alternative to the clinton plan. it belongs in a time and place and is not appropriate now. they have come up with other ideas. complicating this argument is the idea the massachusetts state overhaul had a requirement that people carry insurance. mitt romney says he does not believe the federal government can do this. states should be allowed to pass their own laws. when he was governor, he decided -- the state decided

this was something of a state level they decided it was something they should do. caller: i am a retired corporate attorney for one of the largest health care companies in michigan and probably the country. i want to talk college finance. we have the most expensive universal health care system in the world. it is called the emergency room. we would make contracts with participating hospitals over those that agree to accept our payment amounts. we have to include in the payment amount the amount for covering the uninsured because hospitals cannot turn away anyone. as to the governors that do not want to cover medicaid, the $1,000 a year extra that

everyone with insurance pays, that is how it is financed. it is being financed because the insurers have to reimburse participating hospitals for their coverage of the uninsured. what i am trying to say is there is no free lunch in the health care business. i will take your comments offline. thank you. guest: the caller is referring to the mid-1980s law that does require hospitals to treat people, give urgent care regardless of ability to pay. this is the uncompensated care the doctors and hospitals talk about. they say people without insurance use services but pass on the cost to everyone else. this becomes the basis of the argument the government should require everyone to carry some insurance. host: we have several more calls before we wrap up.

our guest is louise radnofsky of the "wall street journal." she has written quite a bit about lobbying on the health care issue. >> all of today's "washington journal" is available online. the house will spend the day beginning consideration of a bill to repeal the 2010 health care law. the rules governing the measure will allow for up to five hours of debate. no amendments. final passage expected on wednesday. now live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, rabbi joel levinson, congregation b'nai jacob, wood woodbridge,

connecticut. the chaplain: we invoke your blessing for good judgment, wisdom, and understanding upon this house and all of its esteemed members. keep them mindful of our trust. bestow upon them strength, determination, and will power to do instead of just to pray. to become instead of merely to wish. watch over the men and women who serve our country for your sake and ours. may our land be safe, secure, and a source of goodness in our lives blessed. may we repair this world and fill it with decency, justice, and peace. a world for which the profit isiah prayed centuries ago when he said let justice well up as water and righteousness as a mighty stream.

may the words that we pray and the deeds that we do be acceptable before you, o lord, our ever present inspiration, rock, and redeemer, and let us say amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye, those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> qui the yeas and nays. the speaker: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will -- please rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the plrgeplg will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. johnson. -- the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. will you join me in the audience. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro, is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, it is my privilege this morning to welcome rabbi joel leavenson of congregate ba nay jacob in woodbridge, connecticut, to the house of representatives. when joel graduated from miami university of ohio, he thought about going to either law school or rabbinical school. thought the world already had too many lawyers and not enough men of faith. after graduating from the jewish

theological seminary in new york and serving under rabbi albert lewis, the subject of mitch album's book, "have a little faith" he came to woodbridge, connecticut, where he has been the spiritual leader of congregation ba nay jacob since 2008. there he has gained a reputation as a dynamic and inspiring presence in the pulpit and he, his wife, with us today, and his children, have become warm and caring members of the community. we are joined by what we call the -- up in the cabalry this morning. over his time he has been dedicated to promoting social justice and spiritual growth throughout connecticut. and he has worked for a strong sense of jewish identity, a joyful and inspiring congregation, and innovative educational opportunity throughout the synagogue. rabbi leavenson personally

teaches preschool classes and meets with and works with woodbridge teenagers, including leading them on trips to israel. hasegawa also worked extensively with outreach to young families and he is a dedicated cyclist and try athlete who has taken part in the israel ride, a yearly ride across the 400 miles . i thank him for his commitment to improving our community and for his profound words this morning. rabbi leavenson, we thank you for leading us in today's invocation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair will entertain 15 further request for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i have a unanimous consent for one minute speech. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the former members program be printed in the congressional record and

that all members and former members who spoke during the proceedings have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: will vote for 392nd time to repeal, defund, or dismantle the president's government health care takeover bill. not only will this legislation grow the size of government limiting freedom, it will also levy 21 new or higher taxes on americans and small businesses, causing the destruction of jobs. if obamacare is not repealed beginning on january 1, 2013, a 3.8% capital gains tax on investment income will go into effect, destroying jobs in the home building and real estate industry. the national federation of independent business, nfib, america's largest association of small businesses, has estimated obamacare will destroy 1.6 million jobs. in order for our nation to recover, obamacare must be repealed and the government and

congress must pass legislation that encourages job creation through private sector job growth. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? le without objection, the gentlelady is recognized -- without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hochul: thank you, madam speaker. after a week of traveling my district i heard one consistent message, our constituents, particularly the middle class, they want to know their economic situation. they want to know, they are asking this congress, are you going to extend the tax cuts that they have now enjoyed to the tune of $1,500 to $2,500 a year. that's an important answer we should be able to give them this week. instead of looking backwards and relitigating old battles, why don't we look forward and give

them the confidence they need as they are making their plans. families all across my district are doing what i did as a mother for 15 years as a mother, trying to decide how much you'll spend on school shopping. are you going to be able to plan vacation? what about christmas shopping? maybe you can even squeeze in enough money to go to a buffalo bills game with your family. let's give them the certainty they need now. work in a bipartisan way, democrats and republicans together, let's enact a permanent middle class tax cut. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? million poe: madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, at this moment attorney general eric holder's going to deliver a speech at a conference in houston, texas. to hear him speak, media must present a valid government photo i.d. i assume this is to prevent unauthorized individuals from being able to enter the auditorium.

i suspect mr. holder will rant about texas having a voter i.d. law to vote, however. you see, madam speaker, the justice department is also in court today suing texas claiming texas voter i.d. law disenfranchises people. it seems to me the law would only disenfranchise fraudulent voters. never mind the supreme court has already upheld voter i.d. laws. madam speaker, the d.o.j. just ignores the supreme court decision it is doesn't like and continues its war against texas. holder is inconsistent. he believes in securing and photo i.d.'s for people when he speaks, but rejects valid security and i.d.'s for people when they vote. security is important. security prevents unauthorized individuals from entering an auditorium or those that shouldn't enter the auditorium or shouldn't vote. but the d.o.j. doesn't care about being hypocritical. the d.o.j. is once again on the wrong side of justice. that's just the way it is.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> last week i visited with seniors who live at willfred manor in island. they asked me to deliver a message. the time for fighting over health care reform has ended. mr. cicilline: we should work together to make we work together. instead republicans have chosen to once again spend valuable legislative time trying to score political points. what concerns me the most is how their actions would impact my constituents, folks like rita, a senior who lives there. rita was recently diagnosed with cancer. and if republicans did succeed in repealing health care reform, millions of men and women like rita could be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to

refrain from starting this debate all over again and instead focus their energy and attention to getting people back to work by taking up critical jobs legislation. i thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. johnson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you. last month the supreme court made its regrettable ruling to uphold the president's job-killing tax program known as obamacare. while the high court may have deemed it constitutional as a tax, americans deem it burdensome and unaffordable. obamacare boasts $500 billion in tax hikes, 150 new federal bureaucracies, and $176 or .176 trillion added to the growing national debt. not to mention the massive amounts of red tape and legalese that get in the way of patients

and their doctors. before we know it, going to the doctor will feel more like a trip to the d.m.v., the department of motor vehicles. our tax and spender in chief needs to stop throwing more hard-earned tax dollars at a broken health care system and start working with congress to implement commonsense reforms. we can make coverage more accessible, more affordable, and give americans the freedom to choose their health care plans. our first step is to repeal obamacare this week. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: madam speaker, rise today to honor the lives of four north carolinians. lieutenant colonel paul michael, major joseph m. mccormack of belmont, major david of boone, and senior master sergeant

robert s. cannon of charlotte. the four airmen of the north carolina national guard, 145th airlift wing, were supporting firefighting efforts throughout the rocky mountains when their aircraft crashed on july 1. their sacrifice reminds us of the selflessness of those who put their lives at risk to protect our lives and property. our thoughts and prayers go out to the entire north carolina national guard community. we are grateful for their service and courage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> qul unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. tomorrow the house ag committee will vote on a farm bill that will give producers across our country the certainty they need to continue producing the safest, most abundant, and affordable source of food on the planet. as the committee works to produce a responsible farm bill that works for all regions of the country, i would like to recognize farm families in my state. in my home state of arkansas

farming is a family business. young people begin helping with chores on the farm almost as soon as they walk. in many cases generations of family farmers work side by side cultivating the land. families take great pride in working together, continuing a tra days of hard work. mr. crawford: agriculture is the backbone of our economy. each year the arkansas farm bureau recognizes families for their contributions to our state. i congratulate all the county farm family winners across arkansas in this achieve. we take great pride in our state's farm families we'll recognize this year. congratulations to all the county farm families recognized and i applaud them for their commitment to agriculture and hope for their ongoing success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. baca: madam speaker, tomorrow the house agriculture committee will mark up the farm bill that will devastate many of our children, seniors, and

veterans. this misguided bill will cut $16 billion from snap program, a program that puts food on the table for over 46 million americans. . this debate isn't just about the numbers. there is a human cost. if these cuts are allowed to stand, two million to five million low income individuals will lose snap eligibility. 280,000 children will lose access to free school meals. these children may have the only meal that they're provided to them in school. and it will change their attitudes and their behaviors in school. 210,000 households in my state of california will receive reduced benefits a lot lower. in california six million people rely on snap. including two million children. in my district they suffer from the fourth highest rate of food

insecurity in the nation. it is a moral responsibility that we protect the snap program. we must pass a responsible farm bill that includes no nutritional cuts. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. madam speaker, i rise today in recognition of the voices of lee for their outstanding performance and representation of lee university. lee university is located in my current district within bradley county, tennessee, and presently has a little over 4,400 students enrolled in their undergraduate program. under the direction of mr. danny murray, voices of lee has grown into a nationally recognized singing group, having released seven music albums and several d.v.d.'s since their debut in september of 1994. mr. fleischmann: the group performs ac pella around the

country and their current schedule includes locations in north carolina, indiana, florida and many other states. the energy and feelings placed in each and every song is the talent that deserves praise and this talent is not yet easily learned. i believe that anyone who listens to them cannot hear the music without being moved. each student who receives the opportunity and honor participating in the voices of lee is put through grueling training and given demanding work. however, these results of the labor are not in vain. i am pleased to take this opportunity to commend them for such dedication. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i think it's worth while to remember why congress passed health care reform in the first place. it's because our system was broken. it wasn't working. but just this morning speaker

boehner said that we needed to repeal the affordable care act because we didn't need it, because we had the best health care system the world has ever seen. well, i don't think that was true for 17 million children who were being denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions. ms. hahn: and i don't think that was true for about 3.1 million young adults who were denied coverage because they were kicked off their parents' insurance plans. and i don't think that was true for 40 million americans who couldn't get coverage and for every family threatened with losing their coverage because of rising costs. if we need to tweak the law, let's work together to fix it. but let's not repeal it. i think that would be bad for our health. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise this

morning to honor the life and service of army major paul c. volumeky. major volumeky died on june 22, 2012, in balk province, afghanistan, supporting operation enduring freedom. this was his second deployment to afghanistan and he'd also served two tours in iraq. major volky was in the army for 14 years and during that time he was awarded a bronze star which is given for bravery and a purple heart given for injuries received in combat. ms. hayworth: i was privileged last friday to join the major's family, friends, colleagues and neighbors at the funeral service. it was held on the grounds of his alma mater, the united states military academy of west point. major volky was a native of the hudson valley and he spent his career in service to our nation. and he died defending its freedoms. his wife, tracy, movingly described his perseverance and dedication and i know that major

volky's life will continue to inspire all of those who knew him and served with him. and, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady. -- the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. as a founder and co-chair of the out of poverty caucus, this morning many of us stood with advocates and faith leaders to say in one voice, no cuts to food stamps in the farm bill. food stamps provided that critical bridge over troubled waters for -- waters for me and my family when i was a young mother and i thank our government and the american people for this safety net. the american people were there for me and my family when we needed it most, we need to be there for people who need it most now. mr. lee: every year several members -- ms. lee: every year several members take part in the food stamp challenge. eat for one week on average food stamp benefits which is $1.50 per meal. every member should join us in the food stamp challenge this

year. especially members who want to cut food stamps. you need to know what it means to be hungry. we simply cannot cut $16 billion in critical snap benefits. food stamps not only feed hungry children, seniors and veterans, but also promote real growth and creates jobs. it makes no economic sense and no moral sense to cut $16 billion from the food stamp program. we should reject these heartless cuts on the poor and get back to creating the jobs and opportunities for everyone. people would rather have a job instead of food stamps to feed their family. but until republicans support efforts to create jobs, we have a moral responsibility and a duty to make sure that at least people eat. it's hard to believe in 2012 we are debating feeding people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, a few weeks ago the senate foreign relations

committee passed a resolution condemning the government of iran for its continued persecution of pastor youcef. pastor youcef sits in prison for the crime of practicing his faith and wishing to raise his two young boys in that faith. his crime was to go to his son's school and ask that they not be subjected to islamic indoctrineation. for that he was taken directly to a tribunal and sentenced to death by hanging. mr. pitts: despite years of imprisonment, his faith has held up under intense interrogation and torture and now the government has extended its campaign of terror to pastor youcef's lawyer. he has been disbarred and sentenced to nine years in prison for representing the pastor. he's been pressured to confess to crimes he did not commit. the government of iran has no respect for human rights or even of their own written laws. i'm glad to see my senate colleagues stand up for pastor youcef. the world needs to know what's happening here and i urge the government of iran to return

this father to his rife and -- to his wife and his two sons. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: madam speaker, i rise to express my support for house resolution 689. a resolution introduced by my colleague, rosa delauro, honoring catholic sisters for their tremendous contributions to our country. catholic sisters have long been responsible for providing care to the neediest, most marginalized people in our city, whether they're feeting the hungry, clothing the poor, educating our students, healing the sick, fighting for our environment, the catholic sisters have touched millions of lives across the country and around the world. madam speaker, catholic hospitals call themselves dignity hospitals in my district and they play a key role in providing health services. those institutions all rely on the tireless support of catholic

sisters. i want to pay special tribute to one of them. my constituent, sister janet corcoran, a member of the sisters of st. francis, who works at marianne medical center in california. she's a pillar of our community. tirelessly advocating everywhere she goes on behalf of better health care, education, social justice, peace and environmental protection. reinforced by a deep faith in god, she and other catholic sisters on the central coast and throughout the country demonstrate an unwavering commitment to the common good, day in and day out. we have much to thank them for and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize mrs. cleon hodgins of boone for her 103rd birthday.

a teaching position in the health sciences department brought mrs. hodgins to boone in 1938. immediately she was active in our community, serving 23 years as secretary for the parks department, teaching sunday school at the first baptist church and becoming active in community garden clubs. a scholarship in her name exists to support the work of students in her former department. mrs. hodgins' natural athletic talent helped her take the golf world by storm following retirement. on top of numerous regional wins, hodgins won three gold and two silver metals -- medals. she scored the third of her career holes in one at the age of 93. mrs. hodgins is a 2005 inductee to the sports of hall of fame, is a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother to three. with the rest of the boone community, i wish her the happiest of birthdays and wish for maybe, -- many, many more. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, the peace bridge is the second busiest crossing at the u.s.-canada border, expediting traffic at the bridge is essential to the economic future of western new york. the historic beyond the borders agreement between the united states and canada raises the possibility of preinspecting much of the u.s.-bound cargo traffic on the canadian side of the border crossing. i have repeatedly advocated that the department of homeland security initiate a pilot program for commercial preinspection at the peace bridge. mr. higgins: last week new york governor said his strong support for this proposal. what he understands is that the preinspection at the peace bridge would go a long way toward improving congestion at the bridge and thereby further integrating the west new york economy with that of southern ontario. the success of the west new york economy is undoubtedly tied to

predictable, reliable access into and out of canada. let's take these steps necessary to open up this bottleneck. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? from kansas? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from kansas is recognized. >> madam speaker, like many of my colleagues, my top priority continues to be job creation in our country. that's why i was so heartbroken with the recent health care decision by the united states supreme court. no matter what we think about the impact this law will have on the privilege lance of health care in our -- prevalence of health care in our country, it is devastating for job creation. this law creates massive amounts of uncertainty, raises taxes and huged a misk burdens and places significant -- huge administrative burdens and places significant burdens. that's why i stand in repeal of this massive burden on our economy. mr. yoder: we need health care reform in this country, no doubt, and i stand ready to work with members of both parties on

a fresh start, a truly bipartisan bill will thank will reduce the cost of -- bill that will reduce the cost of care and not just shift the burden. let's repeal this act. let's give relief to small businesses and let's get our economy going again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. on june 28, the united states supreme court ruled that the patient protection and affordable care act was constitutional. it is now the law of the land thanks in most part to republican-appointed chief justice roberts. tomorrow this house is expected to vote on the repeal of the affordable care act. vote again. remember h.r. 2 on january 19 and now h.r. 6079.

mr. hanna: it is unfortunately expect -- ms. hanabusa: it is unfortunately expected that it will be repealed again. how sad, madam speaker. how can you face the seniors, the students, the women and children and small business with this level of uncertainty by trying to repeal it again? they are the primary beneficiaries. can you explain why? can you especially explain how this is going to add to the deficit, the c.b.o. says so? $110 billion in 10 years and $1 trillion in 20 years. madam speaker, let's not play politics with one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have passed. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house, madam speaker, for one minute, and to the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is

recognized. mr. connolly: here are the top 10 reforms the republicans want to repeal tomorrow. the prescription drug saving seniors $600 a year. parents offering health care coverage to their children. protection force bankruptcy in the event of a catastrophic illness. wellness visits every year. reforming medicare advantage, resulting in a 7% drop in premiums. and 10% increase in enrollment. 151,000 average rebates this year alone from insurance companies. protections for having coverage rescinded by insurance bureaucrats. tax credits for small businesses to help defray the cost of offering coverage to their employees. and guaranteed medical coverage even if you discover you have a pre-existing condition. ladies and gentlemen, let us not repeal these reforms with republican death panels. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: madam speaker, today the house will consider a repeal of the affordable care

act for the 31st time. we'll spend at least six hours debating this but not one minute considering a republican replacement. that's because there isn't one. the american people are now experiencing the benefits of the law. allowing young people to stay on their parents' policies until they are 26. requiring insurance companies to cover children regardless of pre-existing condition. republicans leadership has the choice to include those provisions and others in this bill. yet once again they are choosing to deny care to millions of americans instead. with this bill republicans are choosing to cut young people off their parents' coverage. they are choosing to end guaranteed coverage for children with juvenile diabetes, autism, and other illnesses. they are choosing to raise prescription drug cost force seniors and allowing insurance companies to charge women for more of the same policies as men. madam speaker, i invite any republican in this body to come to the floor and explain to my constituents and theirs why they have made the choice to repeal all of these patient protections

while offering the american people nothing in return. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. the middle class and men and women looking for work in this country are asking where are the jobs? mr. grijalva: the republican majority in the house will be responding once again by voting to take away health coverage to struggling americans. for instance, instead of bringing jobs bill up or fair taxation bill up to the floor, we will be taking away health care from a very significant and important group of americans. the first americans. the american indians. by upholding health reform the supreme court decision affirmed that the permanent re-authorization of indian health care improvement act was also part of the decision. the national congress of american indians responded by

stating this is an important step in indian country. the permanence of indian health care improvement act has been affirmed. the affordable care act permanently authorizes daily health care delivery to nearly two million american indians and alaska natives who are in critical need of improved health care and services to their communities. there will be critical updates, modernizations, expanded cancer screenings, long-term care, hospice care, and care for the elderly and disabled. the passage of health care reform represented a 14-year struggle by tribal leaders to make permanent a legislative commitment by the federal government that had not been upheld. it is wrong for the republicans to take this promise away to indian country and first americans of this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. grijalva: americans want a jobs plan not their health care taken away. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek

recognition? mr. ellison: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: one minute the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: madam speaker, we could spend five hours today and tomorrow talking about jobs. we could consider a jobs plan that the president offered before this very body. but we won't. because we have to go repeal health care again for the 31st time. you would have thought the 17th time would be good. 29th time. 3 is-s -- 31st time is like they are going for a record. of course the senate is not going to take this this up. this is political theater at its worse because americans are out of work than body isn't doing anything about it. everyone here knows that the president can't just rip up a jobs bill out of thin air. congress has to pass it. but congress won't pass it because they are busy doing political stunts. and that is a shame. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. ellison: i seek recognition to move to adjourn. we are not doing anything anyway. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion that the house adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. ellison: i do now move for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 15 minutes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]